Boeing, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Japanese officials have completed their initial investigation into the 787's battery problems in recent weeks. A battery that was involved in this week's incident will be sent to Tokyo for further investigation.

A Japanese safety official mentioned that the battery associated with this week's incident was charred, and that excessive electricity could be the reason it overheated. The battery looked like a burnt metal box that had liquid spilling from the inside.

Boeing uses rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for its main electrical system. GS Yuasa Corp., which makes the lithium-ion batteries used in the 787s, said the problem could be the battery, the power source or the electronics system.

Just this week, a 787, which was an All Nippon Airways (ANA) flight to Tokyo, had an issue with its main battery only 15 minutes into a 90-minute flight. After 40 minutes, a burning smell made its way into the cabin and cockpit, and the plane made an emergency landing at Takamatsu Airport on the southern island of Shikoku. This issue caused all 787s to be grounded in Japan, the U.S. and India until a safety investigation was conducted and the problems were corrected.

Unfortunately, this incident isn't where the 787's problems started. Early last week, a 787 operated by Japan Airlines had experienced an electrical fireat Boston's Logan International Airport after coming in from Tokyo. According to the National Transportation Safety Board, a battery in the auxiliary power unit suffered severe fire damage.

Just one day later, a Boeing 787 operated by the same airline at the same airport suffered a fuel leak. The fuel leak was discovered at 12:25 p.m. ET right after the 787 left the gate for a trip to Tokyo. The flight was cancelled, and the plane was towed back to the gate where passengers were instructed to exit and stay in the airport. No one was injured.

As it turns out, about 40 gallons of fuel had leaked from the 787. The plane ended up being delayed four hours before leaving for Tokyo.

On Friday of last week, two more issues occurred. It was discovered that a 787 Dreamliner with All Nippon Airways (ANA), which had arrived at the Matsuyama airport in western Japan from Tokyo on Friday, developed a web-like crack in the cockpit window. The pilot found it about 70 minutes into the flight, but no one was injured. In a separate incident on Friday, but also with ANA, another 787 Dreamliner had an oil leak after traveling to the Miyazaki airport in southern Japan. It is unclear how much oil had leaked.

quote: I suspect that the pilot decided to start all 4 engines at the same time causing excessive power draw.

Pilots always work down their check & procedure lists even in an emergency. After all their lives depend on correct actions.I doubt anyone would just decide to do something not in the manual outside an emergency.

quote: I doubt anyone would just decide to do something not in the manual outside an emergency.

Hilarous.

Flight Safety is an agreement between the OEMs, the FAA, and the Airlines. Its possible the "manual" is never followed entirely. Or, as the case can often be, an airline feels a change in a manual is entirely upto them. Even for hard structural issues, let alone things such as on/off issues.

Not being an airline pilot, as I see it if something goes wrong and the pilot follows the manual and the plane crashes, then the pilot is less likely to have ALL the blame dumped on him than if he didn't follow the manual.If he (or she) doesn't follow the manual and the plane crashes, then the pilot (or their family) have an almost impossible task of trying to prove whatever decisions they did make were better than the ones in the manual.Conversely, if they do follow the manual, and the plane crashes, the crash investigators are more likely to put at least some of the blame on the aircraft or the manual.So, as I see it, if the pilot believes the chances of a crash are almost certain no matter what he does, then he should follow the manual so the plane and the manual and not himself gets blamed.

There are hundreds upon hundreds of things to know about an aircraft. There is a gigantic list of this to do in the "Standard Procedures".

Your optomism that a Pilot/Airline never tries to use a shortcut to increase on-time percentage, or get home quicker, or just "this it the 10,000 time I done this, lets get it over" mentality is amazing.

At this point, its still entirely possible for the 787 that Operators are doing something not in the "manual" for the 787. It may have been in the manual for early planes, or just not specifically outlawed.